Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pramod Singh Kirar, applied for the post of Police Constable in Madhya Pradesh in 2013/2014. In the verification form, he disclosed that he was tried for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2001, which resulted in acquittal on 30.10.2006 due to a settlement between the husband and wife. Despite being found meritorious and eligible, his candidature was cancelled by order dated 16.12.2014 on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case. He filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 21.08.2017, setting aside the cancellation and directing appointment with consequential benefits including 50% back wages. The State appealed, and the Division Bench of the High Court, relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India and other decisions, allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order, holding that the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate involved in a criminal case even if acquitted. The review petition was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had truthfully disclosed the criminal case and was acquitted 7 years before applying. The offence under Section 498A IPC arose from a matrimonial dispute that ended in settlement, and the acquittal was based on the complainant turning hostile. The Court distinguished the case from Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya, where there was suppression of facts and conviction. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of suppression and given the acquittal, the appellant could not be denied appointment solely on that ground. The Court quashed the Division Bench's order, restored the Single Judge's order to the extent of setting aside the cancellation and directing appointment, but modified the benefits to apply from the date of actual appointment only, applying the principle of no work no pay. The respondents were directed to appoint the appellant within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Police Constable - Cancellation of Candidature - Past Criminal Case - Acquittal - Suppression of Facts - Employer's Right to Consider Antecedents - The appellant applied for the post of Police Constable and disclosed in the verification form that he was tried for an offence under Section 498A IPC, which resulted in acquittal in 2006. The employer cancelled his candidature solely on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case. The Supreme Court held that since there was no suppression of material facts and the appellant was acquitted, the employer could not deny appointment solely on that ground. The Court restored the Single Judge's order directing appointment, but with benefits from the date of actual appointment only (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's candidature for the post of Police Constable could be cancelled solely on the ground that he was tried for an offence under Section 498A IPC, which resulted in acquittal, despite having disclosed the same in the verification form.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the Division Bench's orders, restored the Single Judge's order setting aside the cancellation of candidature and non-appointment, and directed the respondents to appoint the appellant as Police Constable within four weeks. However, the appellant shall be entitled to all benefits from the date of actual appointment only (no back wages).
Law Points
- Employer's right to consider antecedents
- No suppression of material facts
- Acquittal in matrimonial dispute
- Appointment cannot be denied solely on past criminal case resulting in acquittal
- Principle of no work no pay
